150 comments:

Steal? Oh now, how can it be helped that some scattered brained election officials just left stacks of voter ballots around? Sure is lucky that they're "finding" them now. I would be awful if those "votes" weren't counted.

Imagine if WalMart were run the way the politicians run elections....Every day at the close of business, cashiers would be finding money underneath the cash registers, behind apparel racks, in the parking lot....

Come on, all these terrible accusations about "stealing elections" when everyone knows it was just great excitement watching the first born Hawaiian become the presumptive President Elect in the USA. Wonder if that presumption will hold up after the real election?

That's really quite a mouth full: "Office of the President Elect Presumptive!" At least that's what the Constitution calls it, doesn't it?

One of the reasons the overwhelming majority of people identify Ann as a conservative is because she makes ridiculous "Franken is stealing the election" statements that have no basis in reality. All these irresponsible and intellectually dishonest statements really show is that Ann is up to her eyeballs in the raving lunacy of right wing blogs, and the raving idiocy of her hatemongering hero, Rush Limbaugh.

The real question is "does she really believe it, or is she lying?"

I'm fairly sure that Ann is aware that there is no evidence that Franken is stealing the election. So then why does she pretend like there is no question that he is? Why does she use completely unqualified language that flatly states as fact that Franken is stealing the election, when there isn't even weak evidence in support of that theory? Again, a gut feeling is one thing, but if the writer has nothing more than a gut feeling, doesn't intellectual honestly require her to employ some kind of qualifying language to indicate that the statements are mere speculation and personal opinion?

I don't think there are any Blue Dog Dems in the Senate. Oh, come on. Probably a third of Senate Dems are blue dogs. And we're all going to find that out next year. Democrats will never get the complete and total party loyalty from Congressional Dems than Bush was able to get from Congressional Republicans over the last 8 years. Republicans have marched in lockstep; in 2009, it will be hard for Dems to get 50 votes on a number of important issues. 58 Senate Dems really only means the Democrats can pass legislation on those occasions when they can keep fewer than 9 Democrats from siding with Republicans.

Of course, it's all a moot point since Republicans will use the filibuster to block all meaningful legislation. Republicans who for years have been demanding "up or down votes" as though it was the birthright of every American will suddenly be silent on the subject.

Now the republicans better hope the two ladies from Maine and Specter stay in the fold with the republicans.

I am so glad Saxby won. He is one of the best senators this country has. Also, we need his name in the senate.

Saxby is a true patriot. Four deferments from Vietnam and ran against a man that lost his arms and legs in Vietnam and in the last election called him unpatriotic. Got to love the balls of good old southern white Saxby.

Verso wrote: One of the reasons the overwhelming majority of people identify Ann...

Good God. When did the adult population of the U.S. vote on the proper categorization of Ann? Or is this the reflection of a poll involving every man, woman and child in these United States? Never mind: It was missed, totally uncovered, by both the MSM and blogoheroes alike.

Recent history suggests that this is the first of many Republican victories over the next four (maybe eight) years: the party that holds the presidency tends to lose ground at every other level of government.

If you are a person of strong ideological or partisan leanings, this is a disturbing fact.

Hee. The problem is that few Democrats care. Sure, the true partisans -- the ones who live in DC and on the coasts -- who want a supposedly filibuster-proof 60-vote plurality might feel anguish, but for most, I imagine they're just wondering what the future holds given the many challenges facing this great country.

The things you noted cruelly or sarcastically (?) - the disabled kid, pregnant & unmarried teen daughter- that is what is called life. It's how you handle it that counts.

I only point out an obvious fact: Few mothers would wish what has happened to Sarah Palin on their own daughters. I'm not sure why it's cruel to point that out. Highlighting the cruel things that can happen, things I don't want my daughter to experience? Why wish difficulty on your children? You say you meant just the good things -- well, that's not Sarah Palin, then, is it?

I actually was less interested about what this meant in regards to the current situation and more about what it hinted at for 2010.

When viewing the numbers it was all but certain that he would win, as he had about 49% of the vote to his opponent's 46% (Martin would have needed a much higher turn out than before, would have needed to capture nearly all of the remaining 5%, or Chambliss' support would have had to crater).

No, what is interesting to me is that without Obama on the ballot Chambliss gained roughly 10 more points and Martin ended up roughly 5 points lower (I think he previously was at 46).

Yes, those who voted for Chambliss probably had a greater motivation (the filibuster and all that); but a swing of this many points still seems rather striking to me.

ROFL again. That's what blows my mind. I actually know people who have gay children and still rally behind the likes of Saxby Chamblis and the rest of the foul Republican Party. What kind of parents would vote for a party that hates their children, calls them "perverted and sick," and wants them relegated to 2nd class status, if not prosecuted?

And everyone here knows that there is widespread Republican support for prosecution of homosexuality for various gay practices. Just look at the outrage about Lawrence v. Texas among the kind of people who like Sarah Palin.

What kind of parents would vote for a party that hates their children, calls them "perverted and sick," and wants them relegated to 2nd class status, if not prosecuted?

Are you delusional? No one says those things. If you want to take an example, let's look at the arch evil republican Cheney family who has their lesbian daugher Lynn chained up in the basement....oooh my bad. They love their daughter and support her lifestyle.....quietly, soberly, and with love.

And everyone here knows that there is widespread Republican support for prosecution of homosexuality for various gay practices. Just look at the outrage about Lawrence v. Texas among the kind of people who like Sarah Palin.

Ummmm. Yeah.. and everyone knows (snicker) that the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are secretly pedophiles....give me a fucking break.

MM said, "You say you meant just the good things -- well, that's not Sarah Palin, then, is it?"

Yes, you nailed it. They never knew or cared about the real Sarah Palin. You can tell because they fell madly in love with her before they even knew anything about her. All they knew about Palin, back on that first day when Ann was sobbing and feeling chills, could have fit on a 3x5 card:

-white-fertile-conservative-rural-pure (uncontaminated by liberalism or vice)

That was it. A cultural totem for McCain to wave around to mesmerize the Republican base. And, man! Did it work like a charm. Er, like a totem.

To this day Palin, like Joe the Plumber, is nothing more than a symbol for the simplest Republican notions.

Verso said: "I bet most mothers look at Obama and wish their own sons will be lucky enough to have a life like Obama's for themselves.

Really? At which stage? (And do we discount some of the very things which Obama himself lamented in his books?) Did you read his books, Verso?

Verso said: "I bet most mothers look at Obama and wish their own sons will be lucky enough to have a life like Obama's for themselves.

It's not reasonable to count ascending to the presidency in that equation: Obama's only #4[4], after all. Pretty much NOBODY'S mother's child gets to be prez of the ol' US of A. God help us if that dream becomes widespread among mothers in any way that could negatively affect the way they bring up their kids.

Franken will lose the recount and sue or expect the Senate to intervene and hand it to him, Al Franken, the guy who borrowed money from the NY Boys and Girls club and then it went broke and closed because he, Al Franken, never paid it back.

How 'bout this: "Franken is challenging perfectly legitimate votes in order to hold down his opponent's total."

However, Coleman is doing the same.

I think they're both trying to steal the election. I think it's absurd how both parties act as if they're the innocent victims of the other party's evil plot when it comes to a contested election.

In a tie election, which this was, both parties sally forth with their evillest, more amoral and light-fingered lawyers. They battle it out and one side wins. Nobody's hands are clean. We saw that clearly in 2000 in Florida. The Supreme Court stepped in primarily to stop the stealing, stop Florida from forever discrediting the democratic process.

It's a lot less important what happens in Minnesota since Obama moved so far to the right. We're in for some moderate Democratic leadership over the next two years.

However, it is probably the death knell for card check and cap-and-trade, both dicey prospects to start with. Both were legislation that would have had to be passed quickly with minimal debate, early in the first year. Now proponents will have to wait at least four years.

Verso said...I bet most mothers look at Obama and wish their own sons will be lucky enough to have a life like Obama's for themselves.

I bet most mothers look at Obama and say I wouldn't mind getting pregnant at 17 out of wedlock by an older married man of another race, religion and nationality who will abandon me and my child within a few years and in my early 50s die a horrible death due to uterine cancer as long as my child grows up to be viewed as the savior of humanity and becomes the President of the United States with only minimal qualifications by raising nearly one billion dollars and being the Chosen Child of the world media and becoming a multimillionaire with a wife and two healthy daughters all before turning 50 years old.

On the other hand if he gets his head blown off on live TV with a clarity that makes the Zapruder film look like a cave painting maybe not.

Verso wrote: Maybe if she lived in a small, conservative town like I do, she would have thought twice about supporting the Party of Hate when she saw gay bashing bumper stickers on one car after another as she travelled around town.

Again, what are Earth are you talking about? I live in an extremely conservative town, and I've never seen a single anti-gay bumper sticker. And I was paying close attention to bumper stickers in 2004 because mine kept getting ripped off of my car. Therefore, I find your story very hard to believe.

Um, wow. You don't know your fellow travellers very well. I know you're more from the libertarian wing of the party, rather than the lunatic Christian wing (note: not all Christians are lunatics; "lunatic Christian" refers to a subset of all Christians) of the party. But still you must know that those types are the most powerful and numerous constituency in the Republican Party.

If you want to take an example, let's look at the arch evil republican Cheney family who has their lesbian daughter Lynn chained up in the basement....oooh my bad. They love their daughter and support her lifestyle.....quietly, soberly, and with love.

Very quietly. I'm glad they quietly accept and love their daughter; it is to their credit. But it's revolting that Cheney was instrumental in leading the Christian Jihad against gay people that characterized the 2004 election -- the months long festival of hatred and scapegoating of gay people that was whipped up coast-to-coast that year

While Ann was stuck in her little liberal bubble of Madison, she probably never saw the millions of gay bashing bumper stickers slapped on cars all over America that year. Maybe if she lived in a small, conservative town like I do, she would have thought twice about supporting the Party of Hate when she saw gay bashing bumper stickers on one car after another as she travelled around town.

Part of the reason a lot of people think Ann is conservative is because in that year, when gay people were thrown to the crazed masses as the national punching bag, she lent them her voice, and her support.

Freeman Hunt said, Again, what are Earth are you talking about? I live in an extremely conservative town, and I've never seen a single anti-gay bumper sticker. And I was paying close attention to bumper stickers in 2004 because mine kept getting ripped off of my car. Therefore, I find your story very hard to believe.

I spend fair amounts of time in a number of small towns: the ones where I live (Michigan), where my dad lives (Michigan), where my brother lives (Ohio), and, finally, where I have friends (in Kentucky). And in all of those places I saw a variety of different anti-gay bumper stickers. I'm quite surprised that you saw none in your town. Not sure where you live, though. Maybe if it's an ultra-red state or location, people would figure the point was moot -- no need to preach to the choir when everyone agrees with you. But then, Kentucky is pretty darn red. Ohio and Michigan less so.

Verso, I live in Northwest Arkansas. My extremely conservative town (Springdale) is right next to an extremely liberal town (Fayetteville), so there are all kinds of bumper stickers around. Again, I've never seen an anti-gay bumper sticker.

Verso said...I spend fair amounts of time in a number of small towns: the ones where I live (Michigan), where my dad lives (Michigan), where my brother lives (Ohio), and, finally, where I have friends (in Kentucky). And in all of those places I saw a variety of different anti-gay bumper stickers.

You never saw any anti-gay bumper stickers.

What you saw were bumper stickers that said "McCainPalin" or "Support Our Troops" or "Jesus Saves" or "I Love my Dog and Gun more than my Wife" and in your paranoid White liberal psychosis you saw gays and blacks and Jews and hippies being marched into gas chambers or lined up to be shot.

Yeah, we were all so totally into her 'whiteness'... What on Earth are you talking about?

Well, given that there are currently zero black Republicans in the federal government (unless I'm forgetting one), and given that the Republican vote is >90% white, it's fair to say that being white is an essential requirement for a Republican political candidate. Granted, there have been a half dozen or so black Republicans elected in the last twenty years or so, so it's not impossible for Republicans to vote for blacks. It's just that it's exceedingly improbable.

Did you know that in Mississippi and Alabama, only 10% and 11% (respectively) of whites voted for Barack Obama?

Verso said...Well, given that there are currently zero black Republicans in the federal government (unless I'm forgetting one),

Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas are not considered "authentically black" so maybe you're right.

and given that the Republican vote is >90% white, it's fair to say that being white is an essential requirement for a Republican political candidate.

Not a logical deduction. Given that 95-99% of the blacks wont vote Republican it's fair to say that being black is an essential requirement for getting the black vote. Or if you are White make it clear that you will protect the black folks from the other White Devil in the election.

Granted, there have been a half dozen or so black Republicans elected in the last twenty years or so, so it's not impossible for Republicans to vote for blacks. It's just that it's exceedingly improbable.

But blacks are free to vote for a black Republican candidate when they challenge a black Democrat. When they do that you will have black Republicans in place of the current black Democrats in Congress. It's not the fault of White Republicans that blacks wont do that.

Did you know that in Mississippi and Alabama, only 10% and 11% (respectively) of whites voted for Barack Obama?

What percentage of blacks in those states voted for McCain?

White Americans have no more obligation to vote for black candidates that blacks have to vote for White candidates.

Unless ,again, the narrative involves White Americas need to "atone" for the Sin of Whiteness. Which is of course a view shared by both White liberals and black bigots.

You don't have to be as far out as Bill Ayers or Louis Farrakhan to basically hold those views.

But not only does our Sarah drop babies, but she also lays golden eggs as far as Republican fundraising is concerned.Despite that nasty lump on the top of her head, look for Sister Sarah behind a rubber chicken at a GOP event near you.They'll even have her parachute in when she might help some R- candidate when the going gets, like, tough.But she'll never be a candidate again for national office.People think she's the one with the room temperature IQ. I doubt that. She's not stupid enough to want it (I think).

I have never in my entire life (55 years) seen an anti-gay bumper sticker. Granted, I've never been to Wisconsin or New England.

I have spent plenty of time amongst "lunatic Christian Republican" southerners. I have driven from California to S. Carolina through the southern states more than once... and I repeat, I have never seen an anti-gay bumper sticker.

I would have noticed and been appalled. The only thing I have been disappointed in is that I've noticed that gays are not much, if any, better than straights when it comes to "spousal" abuse.

Verso said... One of the reasons the overwhelming majority of people identify Ann as a conservative is because she makes ridiculous "Franken is stealing the election" statements that have no basis in reality.

I know. If Ann keeps this up I'm going to have to stop being aroused by watching her in her videos. As Bill Maher asked about Britney Spears, "Can you un-mastrubate to somebody?"

Part of the reason a lot of people think Ann is conservative is because in that year (2004), when gay people were thrown to the crazed masses as the national punching bag, she lent them her voice, and her support.

What??? The 2004 election was about gays???? And that's why Ann ended up voting for Bush? She "lent" gay-bashers "her voice?" Ridiculous. She explained with crystal clarity that her vote was 100 percent about homeland security and Iraq.

I recall the 2004 election being primarily about Iraq, Kerry's "global test," Bush's conduct of the war on terror, Bush's Social Security plan, Kerry's flip-flops, Bush's National Guard service, Kerry's Vietnam record and Jenjis Kahn, taxes and health care.

The only gay-baiting that stands out in my memory was when Kerry and Edwards pressed the point that Cheney's daughter was a lesbian in a transparent attempt to freak out the Republican base. Bush's comments on gays were standard-issue tolerance while opposing gay marriage. But since Kerry also opposed gay marriage, there wasn't an issue there.

There seems to be an obsession here with redefining the '04 election as a right-wing hate fest. The facts aren't there to support that characterization. And, as Prop 8 in California shows, liberal Obama voters are just as capable of voting down gay civil rights as any religious fundamentalist.

All elections that Republicans win are, by definition, right-wing hate fests. The 2010 election will be a right-wing hate fest, with all kinds of talk about racial backlash. Wait and see.

Here's the thing about gays: Most people don't care about them. Sure, there's a small minority of people who, for whatever reason, get hot and bothered about gay people. But they are balanced out by the actual gays themselves.

No, most people just want gays, straights, and everyone else to live their sexual lives quietly. We don't want to know.

As for Kerry, he was a terrible, terrible candidate. Worse than Gore. The fact that Kerry was the best the Democrats could do merely shows how barren our politics is these days, across the board.

I just happened to stumble across this hilarious old post from that lunatic blog, Flopping Aces. But it makes the point: Whiteness was an essential and central part of the McCain / Palin election strategy, and the Republican campaign to destroy Barack Obama:

Note for JAC, Verso, AlphaLiberal, AllenS, and no doubt a number of others I've skipped over.

Bunches of votes suddenly turn up, and, interestingly, they're all for one candidate and zero for the other guy in an election that went essentially 50-50. From a pure mathematical perspective calling this suspicious doesn't begin to describe it. That it happened once is not totally implausible, particularly given the left-of-Joe-Stalin Iron Range area of Minnesota. That it keeps happening over and over is an insult to everyone's intelligence (at least if you stayed awake during algebra).

Suppose you invented special glasses that let you see through the back of cards and immediately headed off to Las Vegas. If you don't take care to lose at least a few hands, you're going to get escorted out of the casinos with great vigor. Likewise, if the Minnesota Democrats had enough intelligence to come in out of the snow they'd find small caches of uncounted ballots that go narrowly for Coleman. But they don't and so they don't -- it's all Franken all the time.

Tell Barack Obama to leave his Chicago-style elections in Chicago, where they stink bad enough as it is.

downtownlad, the latest batch of "discovered" votes is how to cheat right. You "find" 171 votes in a county that went 3:2 for Franken, and 145 of those votes break 91:54 for Franken, slightly worse than his overall ratio in the county but nevertheless adding to his total.

On November 6th Precinct #1 in the Iron Range suddenly "found" 100 uncounted votes that broke 100:0 for Franken. The 100 ballots made up 1/5 of the total votes recorded in that precinct and overall the votes broke 2:1 for Franken. This one really was insulting.

All the latest "discovered" ballots from Ramsey county show me is that the Democrats' cheating is getting slightly more sophisticated after all. I presume Mayor Daley sent some people up to Minneapolis to provide advice.

About those 171 "found" ballots. I have worked at a polling site in WI and at the end of election night the number of ballots issued has to match the number of ballots run through the machine (absentees are also in both counts) so it should be impossible to "find" 171 ballots 3 weeks after the election. One would think it would be the same in MN.

With regard to the anti-gay bumper stickers....haven't seen any and the people making the claim never state what is said on the bumper sticker...they only accusations based upon the stereotypes they hold.

I'm still curious about all the anit-gay stickers in Michigan. I live in a small town in Michigan and have lived here my whole life and have never ever ever seen an anti-gay bumper sticker. I'd love to know exactly what it said.

Thanks for clarifying that for the GOP, mere "tolerance" of gays is to be considered the ultimate gesture of decency, and that any discussion of their civil rights is one they'd prefer to avoid - as long as it doesn't involve a constitutional amendment in something other than the affirmative.

As far as conservative gay-bashing goes, I don't go out of my way to remember any specific bumper stickers or where such bumper stickers might be more prevalent. But they sure love to go out of their way to come into cities with big signs featuring fire and brimstone graphics that say "God Hates Fags!" They love that shit. I see it at least once every year. I've seen it in major cities (>1,000,000) and large cities (>100,000), in the Midwest and in the Northeast. Nothing like getting one's voice heard, I suppose.

Of course, a lot of people seem to be using this thread to deny that others could actually, get this, have personal experiences that differ from their own. So I'm not sure how much of a challenge I should expect for merely stating my own observations.

What amazes me is that parents support a party that panders to their gay children and then kicks them to the curb the minute the election is over and passes legislation that denies them rights. Check out the DADT and DOMA bills and the fact that the group in California that voted most strongly in favor of Prop 8 was the Democratic voting blacks and Hispanics.

How many times do the gays have to get kicked in the head by the politicians like the Clintons and the Kerrys and the rest of the Democrats before they wise up to how they are considered by them; just like the blacks, a reliable voting group that you can pander to and then ignore.

Maybe if she lived in a small, conservative town like I do, she would have thought twice about supporting the Party of Hate when she saw gay bashing bumper stickers on one car after another as she travelled around town.

Then it sounds like your town sucks and is full of bigots. I suggest you move. I live in a very small conservative town ( A rural resort area. Less than 700 people live in the town itself and about 8000 in the surrounding areas. The population swells during the 'seasons' for fly fishing, golfing, skiing, or hunting...you can't get much smaller than that).

The reddest of rednecks live here and this section of the county generally votes 85% Republican. I have never seen any anti gay bumper stickers in my life. We did see a few Yes on 8 yard signs.

There are several gay couples who live in our little burg and are widely accepted as business leaders, in the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary and are welcome guests at social functions. One lesbian couple has a very landscaping business and one partner is the high school girl's basketball coach and baseball coach. No one cares that she is lesbian, because she doesn't flaunt her sexual preferences and is professional.....plus.....the teams win!!!

Seriously, get a grip and stop trying to look at everything through the prism of your sexuality.

I've noticed that gays are not much, if any, better than straights when it comes to "spousal" abuse.Melrose Place had a very touching story where Matt was a victim of gay domestic violence back in the day.

On topic, maybe it’s not fair to blame Al Franken for stealing the election, since we have no idea if he is involved. But when random democrats are finding 100 votes in their car that weren’t there during the official count, well, color me suspicious.

Anti-Gay bumper stickers? Hogwash. Maybe that’s a northern thing, if so, because I’ve never seen them in the south.

Are you taking this personally? Are you worried about the possibility of identifying with such people? I suppose I could hire private investigators to uncover further detail on the weekend bible thumpers who come into cities and proclaim God's hatred for 'fags', but I really don't have that kind of time on my hands. Or interest. Or apparently the same sense of obscurity about these people that others have.

If blacks had turned out for Martin the way they did for last month's election when Obama was on the ticket the run-off race might have been a lot closer. And that raises the question, why Obama didn't show up?

Was it Obama's knowledge that blacks weren't going to rush to the polls just to choose between two white men, so why squander his political capital?